Socioeconomic Status, English Exposure and CLIL Motivation in High and Low Exposure CLIL Groups
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programs are often praised for bringing equity to foreign language learning (e.g., Lorenzo et al., 2020). However, streaming processes, such as those of the Community of Madrid Bilingual Program, may reinforce social inequalities among students (e.g.,...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2022 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona |
| Repositorio: | Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ddd.uab.cat:254938 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://ddd.uab.cat/record/254938 https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.5565/rev/clil.67 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | CLIL Bilingual education Socioeconomic status Motivation Secondary AICLE Educación bilingüe Nivel socioeconómico Motivación Secundaria Educació bilingüe Nivell socioeconòmic Motivació Secundària |
| Sumario: | Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programs are often praised for bringing equity to foreign language learning (e.g., Lorenzo et al., 2020). However, streaming processes, such as those of the Community of Madrid Bilingual Program, may reinforce social inequalities among students (e.g., Llinares & Evnitskaya, 2020). In line with recent research comparing CLIL students' affective factors in high exposure (HE) and low exposure (LE) tracks (e.g., Fernández-Agüero & Hidalgo-McCabe, 2020), the present study examines potential differences in the socioeconomic status (SES), CLIL motivation and exposure to English of HE and LE students at a bilingual (Spanish/English) secondary school in a low SES town in Madrid. A questionnaire measuring cultural and economic capital, CLIL motivation, and teachers' use of English was administered to a sample of LE and all HE students in year 10. Results show that the students of lowest and highest SES were concentrated in LE and HE tracks, respectively. In the LE track, CLIL and English teachers used English less frequently, and students exhibited lower intrinsic motivation. For students with lower English proficiency (often of lower SES), access to the cultural and economic capital afforded by knowledge of English may be constrained by fewer meaningful learning opportunities. |
|---|